Best Of 2000-2010 Tracklist

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It was incredibly dumb to release it on the 90-00 compilation, but it would not make commercial sense to leave it off of a 2000s compilation.

And therein lies the key point: nobody but U2 fans are going to notice or care that BD and Stuck are on multiple compilations, and greatest hits compilations aren't marketed towards them anyway.

Were Beatles 1 or Elvis 30 #1 Hits any less successful because those tracks had already been packaged dozens of times before? Hell no.
 
Were Beatles 1 or Elvis 30 #1 Hits any less successful because those tracks had already been packaged dozens of times before? Hell no.
Perhaps a more accurate comparison/question would be: Were the same songs on The Beatles 1962-66 and on The Beatles 1967-70? Hell, no.

I take your point that these comps aren't for committed fans, but I think if they were going to put the same songs on successive compilations, it would require a "re-boot" of the whole issuing of their hits. In other words, the third one would not be a Best of 2000-2010.
 
True LM, but they left the song that defined their 90s output off the 1990-2000 best of, a song that was a massive number 1 in the UK, knocking Bryan Adams off number 1 after 16 weeks, the sound of 4 men cutting down the joshua tree.
How on earth could The Fly not have been on that album!

:up:

It just goes to show how far away U2 was at the beginning of the 00s from even understanding their 1990s work. Incredible.
 
:up:

It just goes to show how far away U2 was at the beginning of the 00s from even understanding their 1990s work. Incredible.

Didn't The Edge say it sounded too dated or something?
I don't understand what that has to do with compiling a greatest hits, (especially one covering a specific time period!) Love Me Do and 19th Nervous Breakdown sound pretty dated as well but theyll still sit pretty on most Beatles/Stones best ofs.
 
Didn't The Edge say it sounded too dated or something?
I don't understand what that has to do with compiling a greatest hits, (especially one covering a specific time period!) Love Me Do and 19th Nervous Breakdown sound pretty dated as well but theyll still sit pretty on most Beatles/Stones best ofs.

I thought the comment was, "hasn't aged well." :huh:
 
Ugh. I hope you didn't mean that comment the way it sounds.

I suppose if we want "understanding" of U2's 90's work, we should look to Interference?

Unbelievable.

I mean it exactly the way I trust it sounded. The band who gave us ATYCLB were incapable of creating anything as vibrant and creative as Achtung Baby. The story of the band since 2000 is the story of a band on their way back from the abyss.

I can't imagine anything as wonderful as MOS or FEZ being on an album next to Grace, New York, Walk On, WILATW, etc.

The Edge, in the place he was when he said The Fly hadn't aged well, was unable to understand why it was a better song than The First Time, or why the Hedge's Mixes of the POP tracks were not as good as the album versions.
 
They surely understood their 90's work. They just had to reshape the way they were going to start spinning the truth about it all to the press, and fans, etc. - in order to accomplish their public "reboot".

They distanced themselves from it, in order to sell the idea (loosely paraphrased) "this is who we are and this is always what we wanted to do". They tried to act as if the 'new U2' in 2000 was the same as the old U2. Not in terms of sound, but in terms of creative desires.

Some believe that 'political spin' and the rest of us that are actually objective about U2 don't.
 
They surely understood their 90's work. They just had to reshape the way they were going to start spinning the truth about it all to the press, and fans, etc. - in order to accomplish their public "reboot".

They distanced themselves from it, in order to sell the idea (loosely paraphrased) "this is who we are and this is always what we wanted to do". They tried to act as if the 'new U2' in 2000 was the same as the old U2. Not in terms of sound, but in terms of creative desires.

Some believe that 'political spin' and the rest of us that are actually objective about U2 don't.

No one is "objective about U2." We all have our subjective perspectives.

I don't see any evidence that the U2 of 2000 understood the music they had created 9, or even 3 years earlier.
 
They made it, I'm sure they fully understand it.

They just didn't want to sell it anymore.

They understood it when they wrote it obviously, but did they understand what made POP great when they did the Michael Hedges mixes? Did they understand The Fly when The Edge said it had aged badly? Eh, I don't think they got it at that point. They were in a different place creatively at that point.

I'll put it another way. In 1991 they wrote Salome, The Fly, Lady With the Spinning Head, How did it all go wrong, Until the End of the World, Mysterious Ways, etc. But in 2000 the best they could do when it came to writing a rocker was the album version of Elevation or New York - both far inferior to 1991's B-side rockers. They weren't in the same creative realm.
 
The Edge, in the place he was when he said The Fly hadn't aged well, was unable to understand why it was a better song than The First Time, or why the Hedge's Mixes of the POP tracks were not as good as the album versions.
One of the things about compilations is that the tracklist should not (according to industry norms) simply replicate an already existent album.

For that reason, U2 must have thought, "Hmm, every U2 fan -- committed or casual -- already has Achtung Baby. Therefore, we can't put more than a few of its songs on a compilation." After all, people don't want to re-buy an album they already have.

Don't get me wrong, the tracklist for The Best of 1990-2000 is completely wack, but at the same time there's a limit to how many songs can go on from one album, otherwise it becomes a pointless exercise.
 
One of the things about compilations is that the tracklist should not (according to industry norms) simply replicate an already existent album.

For that reason, U2 must have thought, "Hmm, every U2 fan -- committed or casual -- already has Achtung Baby. Therefore, we can't put more than a few of its songs on a compilation." After all, people don't want to re-buy an album they already have.

Don't get me wrong, the tracklist for The Best of 1990-2000 is completely wack, but at the same time there's a limit to how many songs can go on from one album, otherwise it becomes a pointless exercise.

Yeah, I agree. But if I were only going to include one song from AB, it would have been The Fly....
 
One of the things about compilations is that the tracklist should not (according to industry norms) simply replicate an already existent album.

For that reason, U2 must have thought, "Hmm, every U2 fan -- committed or casual -- already has Achtung Baby. Therefore, we can't put more than a few of its songs on a compilation." After all, people don't want to re-buy an album they already have.

Very good point. That's why I always figured the compilation wasn't as big on AB as it could've been.

I never heard the quote about Edge saying The Fly "didn't age well". But I do remember a quote where he was basically saying how difficult it was to choose songs for the album between [insert song that made it] and The Fly, and [insert another song that made it] and Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses. My only guess is that they didn't want half of Achtung Baby on there as it was, and they felt like throwing in a few new mixes of Pop songs to either change some things up and/or give the fans something different.
 
No one is "objective about U2." We all have our subjective perspectives.

I don't see any evidence that the U2 of 2000 understood the music they had created 9, or even 3 years earlier.
what they did seem to understand is that in the entire decade they only had 1 album that made a lasting impression beyond their fan base
which is the same as the decade that followed it, but a great step backwards from the 80s

if the band didn't understand what they were doing in the 90s, they wouldn't be so frustrated by the outcome of some of it


I see no evidence U2 doesn't understand the greatness in some the stuff they did in the 90s
however, they also seem to be able to acknowledge the flaws
 
To any U2 fan who lived through that decade, it's quite ridonkulous to think Best Of 1990-2000 is a fair reflection of those 10 years in U2's timeline. It's almost like a "retconning", they were either consciously downplaying how innovative they had been by their standards or - as Niceman asserted - more likely they were in a completely different creative headspace. The omission of The Fly - the blue spark that ignited the whole freakin' decade for them - is completely absurd. The inclusion of Beautiful Day is completely absurd. The new mixes rendered some of their most experimental songs impotent. The whole compilation is just a trainwreck, a travesty. Of course, anyone who came aboard the U2 train in 2000/01 wouldn't know any different. And it's for that particular audience that it was especially catered for. For the fans that were actually there during the 90's - it was a fart in our faces.
 
I think with the 'Best Ofs' U2 were trying to put themselves in the headspace of the fan, and not so much the hardcore fan, and U2 aren't very good at that headspace.

In fact as hardcore fans most of us wish they would never do that, but the truth is sometimes you have to. I almost think they should have left this type of decision up to someone else, maybe Gavin and a few others and then come in and OK the picks.

I think U2 like many other bands, feel very differently about their songs than the fans do. And we may never get the truth about songs as long as we live.

Some songs as brilliant as they are may be a thorn in the band's side because of how much struggle they had to record it, or because personally they never fealt they quite nailed it in the studio.

Others they may absolutely love and it's on the bottom of lists for many fans.

We just don't know. So there may be personal connections to songs, good or bad that may make it impossible for members of the band to look at them objectively.

Some bands come out and tell these things years later and some we'll never know. I personally know a band that recorded a song that is almost universally loved, and for ten years they've been playing it every night of every tour, and almost every member of the band absolutely hates it. This same band has a song that is their personal favorite and they believe was one of their heights creatively and it receives one of the most underwhelming responses of the tour, much to the band's dismay.

So we just never know. :shrug:
 
I don't think the job of a greatest hits album is to faithfully portray a band's history
the 90s had very few singles that still resonate with a lot of people who are not fans of the band
it would have been foolish not to include Beautiful Day
it was one of the few "go to tracks" for a non fan to buy this compilation
 
To any U2 fan who lived through that decade, it's quite ridonkulous to think Best Of 1990-2000 is a fair reflection of those 10 years in U2's timeline. It's almost like a "retconning", they were either consciously downplaying how innovative they had been by their standards or - as Niceman asserted - more likely they were in a completely different creative headspace. The omission of The Fly - the blue spark that ignited the whole freakin' decade for them - is completely absurd. The inclusion of Beautiful Day is completely absurd. The new mixes rendered some of their most experimental songs impotent. The whole compilation is just a trainwreck, a travesty. Of course, anyone who came aboard the U2 train in 2000/01 wouldn't know any different. And it's for that particular audience that it was especially catered for. For the fans that were actually there during the 90's - it was a fart in our faces.

I agree 100%!
 
I don't think the job of a greatest hits album is to faithfully portray a band's history
the 90s had very few singles that still resonate with a lot of people who are not fans of the band
it would have been foolish not to include Beautiful Day
it was one of the few "go to tracks" for a non fan to buy this compilation

I disagree 100%!

Beautiful Day had no more business being on the album than Moment of Surrender or Gloria did. And U2 was fairly popular in the 1990s....
 
Beautiful Day had no more business being on the album than Moment of Surrender or Gloria did. And U2 was fairly popular in the 1990s....

But Beautiful Day had to be on the album. It was required by the parameters set by the decade scheme. You can't call something the best of 1990-2000 and not feature any songs from 2000.

To say that Beautiful Day had no more right to be on it than MOS or Gloria is absurd.
 
Hollow Island said:
But Beautiful Day had to be on the album. It was required by the parameters set by the decade scheme. You can't call something the best of 1990-2000 and not feature any songs from 2000.

To say that Beautiful Day had no more right to be on it than MOS or Gloria is absurd.

1980-1990 didn't include Alex Descends, the only U2 song recorded in 1990...
 
But Beautiful Day had to be on the album. It was required by the parameters set by the decade scheme. You can't call something the best of 1990-2000 and not feature any songs from 2000.

To say that Beautiful Day had no more right to be on it than MOS or Gloria is absurd.

If I say I work from 9 am to 5 pm, you won't be surprised to discover I go home exactly at 5 pm. You wouldn't expect me to wait until thirty seconds after 5, would you? Putting songs from 2000 on the 1990-2000 album is like expecting me to be at work at 5:01. The song came out after Jan 1 2000, and so it had no right being on the album.

I teach online. I had a student this morning scheduled from 8:30-9 am and then another from 9-9:30. I hung up with the first a few seconds before 9 and called the next a few seconds after 9 am. The 8:30-9 student did not expect to get my help until 9:01. They understood that our class ended by 9.
 
To be honest, I don't think U2 ever out as much thought into this as we are. They labeled them 80-90 and 90-00 because that sounds better than 80-89 and 90-99, even if the latter is more correct. They put BD on 90-00 because they had a way of justifying it numerically, even if it was odd, and it's a song that people knew, and they probably wanted to distance themselves from the "weird 90s" a bit. If 00-10 exists, they'll put it on that too, because it's a song that they're famous for and they have a way of justifying it.
 
To be honest, I don't think U2 ever out as much thought into this as we are. They labeled them 80-90 and 90-00 because that sounds better than 80-89 and 90-99, even if the latter is more correct. They put BD on 90-00 because they had a way of justifying it numerically, even if it was odd, and it's a song that people knew, and they probably wanted to distance themselves from the "weird 90s" a bit. If 00-10 exists, they'll put it on that too, because it's a song that they're famous for and they have a way of justifying it.

I think they felt very distant from their 90s work when they made the Best-Of and they wanted to re-context the decade to make it feel more like where they were by then. They knew they were bending the rules by sticking the 2 songs on 90-00, but they were in love with Beautiful Day and Stuck in a Moment a lot more than The Fly and Please at that point.

If there's a 00-10 will BD be on there? I don't know and neither do you. I actually think it highly unlikely there ever will be a CD with that exact name. But I hope they don't. It would be pretty ridiculous.
 
Forget all this quibbling about whether "Beautiful Day" belongs on the 90-00 compilation... what about "Electrical Storm" and "Hands That Built...," which were both recorded in 2002?

I agree that the Best of 90-00 is a terrible representation of the 90s. But as an obsessive fan I'm also sort of glad that they fussed with it and put some new recordings and mixes on there. As much as I think the Michael Hedges mixes suck, at least they were "new" and different. They made me appreciate the original mixes even more, without me having to actually re-buy the original mixes.

And, as far as "best of" compilations go, I think U2 had far more input and involvement with both of these (80-90 and 90-00) than most bands do with a "best of" set.
 
Here goes my little grain of sand. I guess this would have to be a 2cd set:


Winter (from Linear)
Levitate
Electrical Storm (William Orbit Mix)
Native Son
Mercy (Original version)
Fez – Being Born
Moment Of Surrender
Wave Of Sorrow
Are You Gonna Wait Forever?
Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own
City of Blinding Lights
Window in the Skies
No Line on the Horizon 2
Magnificent
Breathe
Tower Of Song
Instant Karma
I Believe in Father Christmas
Love and Peace or Else (React Now version)
Disappearing Act
 
Forget all this quibbling about whether "Beautiful Day" belongs on the 90-00 compilation... what about "Electrical Storm" and "Hands That Built...," which were both recorded in 2002?

I agree that the Best of 90-00 is a terrible representation of the 90s. But as an obsessive fan I'm also sort of glad that they fussed with it and put some new recordings and mixes on there. As much as I think the Michael Hedges mixes suck, at least they were "new" and different. They made me appreciate the original mixes even more, without me having to actually re-buy the original mixes.

And, as far as "best of" compilations go, I think U2 had far more input and involvement with both of these (80-90 and 90-00) than most bands do with a "best of" set.

True. They had FOUR songs from the 00s on the 90-00.
 
Back
Top Bottom